Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
What I don't like is the idea that a print from the original negative is necessarily not as "good" if it was done years later. If the contrast and clarity are really nice, to me it shouldn't matter. (the exception being some art photographers, where the is and should be a difference between a print processed by the artist and one done by someone with access to the negatives. )
|
With all due respect to Steve, I think this is conflating the idea of something being collectible or valuable with it being aesthetically pleasing. There are very few areas of collectibles in which vintage examples are valued equally with modern reproductions, even if made identically using the same means and materials. They may appear identical and have the same utility and aesthetics, but there is nearly always a premium placed on vintage/original examples of any collectible that I can think of.